Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 286 of 382 (500774)
03-02-2009 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Rahvin
03-02-2009 12:16 PM


Also, can you prove that?
You said that "we have directly observed the rise of new species from existing ones."
How is that possible given the emmense spans of time needed for such a hypothesis to be true? There are missing links therefore the fossil record supports sudden creation better than long slow evolution from one species to another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2009 12:16 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2009 1:25 PM Kelly has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 382 (500776)
03-02-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Kelly
03-02-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Completely false
Creation Science is a study of the same evidence that evolutionists study, using the same scientific methods of making observations, establishing a hypothesis to explain those observations, and then testing said hypothesis.
Show me the data.
Can you point to one of the hypotheses and how they were tested? Can you back up this claim at all?
The simple truth is that the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man, and all such events took place in the past and cannot now be studied in the laboratory.
That origins stuff, sans the origin of man, has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
I recommend reading a book titled "What is Creation Science?" By Morris/Parker
All that book does is try to discredit Evolution.
Even if Evolution was shown to be 100% false, that still is not positive supporting evidence for creationism. That is still not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:29 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 1:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 288 of 382 (500780)
03-02-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Kelly
03-02-2009 12:37 PM


Re: Also, can you prove that?
You said that "we have directly observed the rise of new species from existing ones."
How is that possible given the emmense spans of time needed for such a hypothesis to be true?
It's possible because the timescale required for new species to arise is not set in stone. It takes a number of generations for a given populationm to change, but not all living things have long generations compared to the human lifetime.
The term "species" is typically defined as a cohesive group or organisms that are unable to productively interbreed with other groups. In other words, dogs of various varieties are the same species because they can interbreed; dogs and house cats are different species because they cannot interbreed. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but their offspring is not viable (mules cannot reproduce), and so are closely related but different species.
We have directly observed populations of several organisms evolve independently (what you would call "micro" evolution) to the point where each population can no longer interbreed with its parent group. This means that a new species has formed - the parent and daughter species will continue to evolve independantly and will accumulate more and more differences as time goes on.
See this Wiki article for more information of observed instances of "speciation," where we have directly observed new species forming from pre-existing species.
We have no observed a dog giving birth to a fish, or any sort of "metamorphosis," but that's rather irrelevant considering that the Theory of Evolution makes no such claims.
There are missing links therefore the fossil record supports sudden creation better than long slow evolution from one species to another.
This is absolutely and completely false.
The fossil record represents a series of snapshots of life at different given epochs, and has given us multiple instances of what Creationists term "transitional fossils." Technically, all species are transitional because they exist between their ancestor species and any future species that will eventually branch off, but the ones that make everyone excited are examples like Archeopteryx, where a single organism demonstrates distinctly dinosaurian characteristics as well as distinctly birdlike characteristics. There are many, many others - organisms that demonstrate the transition between invertebrates and vertebrates, transitions from aquatic forms of life to amphibians to land-dwellers and then in the case of whales back to aquatic species, etc.
The so-called "missing links" are a method of continually shifting the goalposts. We do not expect to find every generation of every species that has ever existed, and this is what would be required to eliminate all "missing links." When we have examples 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10, Creationists demand 8. When we find 8, 9 becomes the new "missing link." When we find 3, they demand 3.5.
The fact is, we have an extremely detailed representation from the fossil record of new species that arise from older, pre-existing species.
Oddly enough, it seems that no individual feature is completely unique, but is rather a slightly modified version of a pre-existing feature found on a pre-existing species. This supports evolution as a gradual process over many generations, as opposed to instantaneous Creation where species simply pop into existence.
Further, the fossil record is not even the main basis for the Theory of Evolution - it's just one rather strong example. Genetics as we currently understand it did not exist in Darwin's time, and yet when we look at evolution with the addition of the new evidence provided by genetics, it all fits perfectly. And there's a great deal more than genetics, as well. Both genetics and simple direct observation of existing species show vestigial features: those features which have a function in other species but have lost or changed their function in another. The human appendix is a vestigial version of the secum of the alimentary canal - it was used by our evolutionary ancestors who were herbivores to better digest plant matter. It now serves no greater purpose in human beings than to present a lethal risk of infection.
Vestigial features do not fit with Creationism, where each species is designed from the ground up and poofed into existence by a deity. They do, however, fit perfectly with the model presented by the Theory of Evolution, where features are carried on to descendants in slightly modified forms.
The amount of evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution is mountainous. The amount of evidence in support of Creationism consists of an old set of texts written by stone-age nomads and the continued willful ignorance and misconception of religious zealots who take their ancient text over direct, observable evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:37 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 2:09 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 289 of 382 (500781)
03-02-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Kelly
03-02-2009 12:29 PM


Please Start a New Topic
Creation Science is a study of the same evidence that evolutionists study, using the same scientific methods of making observations, establishing a hypothesis to explain those observations, and then testing said hypothesis. My purpose is to explain that most people do not really know or understand what Creation Science is.
If you truly believe "evolutionists" are battling a straw man instead of true "Creationist Science" it would make a great topic. Especially if you could establish the above without ever mentioning the flaws of the ToE. (You'll note that "evolution science" never uses the flaws of creationism as support.) I strongly encourage you to start a new thread.
(Sorry about continuing the off topic banter, y'all, but I don't want Kelly to go away. I've not seen anyone here support CS on it's own merits and if he or she is sincere, I'd like to see it.)

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:29 PM Kelly has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 290 of 382 (500782)
03-02-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by New Cat's Eye
03-02-2009 12:43 PM


What's the difference?
While Creation might discredit the theory of evolution, so too evolution discredits the theory of creation. Those are natural consequences and should certainly not be a reason to dismis studying and comparing both theories to try and come to a better understanding of our world and life itself.
Either life happened by accident (chance) as the road to evolutionary science leads..or it didn't (design) which leads us down the road to life with purpose.
Putting it differently, life either can be explained in terms of natural processes which are continuing to operate today, or they cannot. If not, then non-natural processes must have operated in the past to originate and develope at least some of the components of the universe.
Trying to mix these ideas and conclude that life both happened by chance through natural processes still occuring today but that God did it-is an unecessary compromise. Evolutionary science in the Darwinian sense makes it possible that no God is necessary.
The fossil record is a great example of how the evidence supports the hypothesis of sudden creation. The missing links support the creation model and refute the macroevolution model.
The Law of Decay is supported by the creation model which implies two universal principles. One is the conservation of quantity and the other one of decaying quality. Horizontal changes are predicted as a conservative device, enabling the entire entity to be conserved even though enviromental effects cause it to change in form. Vertical changes, however, are predicted to have a net downward impact. Any apparent vertically upward change requires an excessive input of energy, matter, or information into the system, and can be maintained only temporarily, and at the cost of decay of the overall system outside.
These predictions from the creation model have been precisely and universally confirmed. The two most universal laws of science are the laws of conservation and decay. In the physical realm they are called the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The evolution model not only cannot predict the decay law; but it actually excludes it. Roger Lewin wrote:
"One big problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more order."
Lewin and others may have talked vacuously about "open systems" hoping somehow to enable the universal laws to somehow coexist, but such arguments are purely metaphysical and are never seen working in real life. This leaves the entire discussion outside the realm of real science.
As far as I am concerned, the reason present processes do not show evolution in action and the fossil record does not show any evidence of past processes of evolution (in the macro sense) is because the fundamental law of science governing all processes effectively preclude it. Al of this is predicted by the creation model and specifically contra-predicted by the evolution model. See "What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker for more details if you are really interested.
Both of these models, creation and evolution, can be properly called scientific since they can each be used to explain or predict scientific facts.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 1:47 PM Kelly has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 382 (500786)
03-02-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Kelly
03-02-2009 1:26 PM


Re: What's the difference?
Kelly,
You are wrong in many ways. Propose a new topic so we can correct your misunderstanding if you care to. This topic is about atheism and is not the thread for me to explain it to you.
For example, in the very first line you wrote:
While Creation might discredit the theory of evolution, so too evolution discredits the theory of creation.
That's not even necissarily true as evidenced by Theistic Evolution.
A lot of what you wrote is PRATT. Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
But again, don't respond here as it is off-topic. Propose a new topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 1:26 PM Kelly has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 292 of 382 (500789)
03-02-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Rahvin
03-02-2009 1:25 PM


Re: Also, can you prove that?
The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.
The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.
Page not found – Exchanged Life Discipleship

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2009 1:25 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 2:14 PM Kelly has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 382 (500790)
03-02-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Kelly
03-02-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Also, can you prove that?
There's rules here... here
quote:
6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
Plus, you're still off-topic. Open a new topic already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 2:09 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 294 of 382 (500792)
03-02-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by New Cat's Eye
03-02-2009 2:14 PM


Forget it, I give up!
How can I know that I am not on topic when I am simply responding to these threads the only way I know how. I read them and I respond to what is written. I can't find my way around here easily and I am not even sure how to start a new thread. My interests are all over this topic of "creation verses evolution." It would be a pain to have to search out specific threads for every remark I have or point I want to make. It seems too complicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 2:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 2:54 PM Kelly has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 382 (500794)
03-02-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Kelly
03-02-2009 2:38 PM


Re: Forget it, I give up!
How can I know that I am not on topic when I am simply responding to these threads the only way I know how.
Each thread has a title at the top.
The title of this thread is: "I Am Not An Atheist!"
You're previous post had nothing to due with not being an atheist.
I read them and I respond to what is written.
Oh, its not all your fault, and it usually happens gradually. If you're typing (or copying) stuff and it doesn't have anything to do with the topic/title, then its getting to be time to open a new one. You have written a lot of stuff that covered a lot of different sub-topics so for me to properly reply would really really take the thread off topic.
To view all the topics being discussed, go to the All Topics link at the top of the page, second from the right, next to "Chat".
I can't find my way around here easily and I am not even sure how to start a new thread.
Another good one is just to the left of "All Topics". It is a list of all the Forums for which topics may be introduced in.
If you click on any on of those forums, near the top of the page, before the list starts there will be a button at the right labeled "New Topic". Press that and you will get a link to the Proposed New Topics forum, or just click on that link. There you will find the New Topic button at the right above all the numbers.
My interests are all over this topic of "creation verses evolution."
But discussions can't flow unless they are specific, being focused really helps the discussion.
It would be a pain to have to search out specific threads for every remark I have or point I want to make. It seems too complicated.
Once you get used to the site you'll see that its not really a pain at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 2:38 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 296 of 382 (500796)
03-02-2009 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by New Cat's Eye
03-02-2009 2:54 PM


Re: Forget it, I give up!
Thanks
I'll try to comply if I decide to stick around. In my opinion, if it is that serious an issue to not stray off topic, then the original author of his own topic shouldn't make remarks that would lead others to stray. That is what has happened with respect to me. For the most part, I read the original post and then I go to the end and read the most current replies to see what is being discussed. After 200 some odd replies, naturally the topic is going to be off a little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 3:37 PM Kelly has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 382 (500804)
03-02-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Kelly
03-02-2009 3:02 PM


Re: Forget it, I give up!
I'll try to comply if I decide to stick around.
It'll be your loss if you don't.
In my opinion, if it is that serious an issue to not stray off topic, then the original author of his own topic shouldn't make remarks that would lead others to stray.
Definately, you are right. Some people are worse than others. Take a look at this thread. The author went off-topic in the first page (and then someone made fun of him for it).
Its not that big of a deal (look how off-topic we are here right now) especially if its constuctive, its just that we all should put effort into avoiding it to make this a better palce.
After 200 some odd replies, naturally the topic is going to be off a little.
Of course, and it is expected. All that is expected of you is that you try.
No need to reply now, lets stop being off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 3:02 PM Kelly has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 298 of 382 (500845)
03-02-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Kelly
03-02-2009 10:39 AM


Re: conversely
Hi Kelly,
Did you know that there are many creationists who do not have a religion or specific belief in any God?
That is not possible. If you are a "creationist" then by definition you believe in some kind of creation story.
They simply recognize that the earth and all living things cannot be explained solely in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes. They recognize that life must be explained, at least in part, by completed extra-natural processes in a universe which itself was created. These scientists are not interested in the bible or in proving God, but rather, proving that there is created order in our world.
What you are describing is someone who follows ID -(Intelligent Design). Not a "creationist".
wiki definition
Creationist: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.
The Evolution Model is seen as an atheistic model (even though not all evolutionists are atheists) because it purports to explain everything without God.
The theory of evolution explains only what has been observed. In fact science can ONLY explain what has been observed, therefore any mention of god is excluded from the equation since god has never been observed.
The Creation Model is seen a theistic model (even though not all creationists believe in a personal God) because it requires a God or Designer/Creator able to create the whole cosmos
You're confusing now 2 different theories. The whole cosmos is not explaining by the theory of evolution, one is cosmology the other is biology.
Furthermore, there is no "creation model" that does not come with a religion attached to it, unless you have just made on up from scratch. If you are referencing a "creation model" you have no choice but to point to a specific religions creation story, OR, like I said, make one up from scratch.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 10:39 AM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by AdminNosy, posted 03-02-2009 5:29 PM onifre has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 299 of 382 (500846)
03-02-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by onifre
03-02-2009 5:23 PM


Topic
This material can now be carried in the new threads. Let's get back to the topic of this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by onifre, posted 03-02-2009 5:23 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by onifre, posted 03-02-2009 6:18 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 300 of 382 (500855)
03-02-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by AdminNosy
03-02-2009 5:29 PM


Re: Topic
This material can now be carried in the new threads.
Just saw them, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by AdminNosy, posted 03-02-2009 5:29 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024